1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. Determination on Nov. 14, 2014 by the Defendant pertaining to disability pension not applicable to the Plaintiff.

1. The details of the disposition, the Plaintiff’s assertion, and the grounds for the court’s explanation on this part of the pertinent statutes are as stated in the judgment of the first instance court, 3.8 of the first instance court’s judgment. Then, the first diagnosis date is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment, except for the addition of the following: “ even if the Plaintiff’s Mad-Mad-Mac-Mac-Mac-Mac-Mac-Mac-Mac-Mac-Mac-Mac-Mac-Mac-Mac-Mac-Mac-Mac-Mac-Mac-Mac-Mac-Mac-Mac-Mac-Mac-Mac-Mac-Mac-Mac-Mac-Mac-Mac-Mac-Mac-Mac-Ma

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant disposition

A. The meaning of “disease or injury that occurred during the subscription period” under Article 67(1) of the National Pension Act should be deemed to mean that the disease or injury that caused the disability ought to occur during the period of the national pension coverage when determining medical and objective judgment.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2015Du48662 Decided November 27, 2015). Meanwhile, Article 67(1) of the National Pension Act provides that “Where the first diagnosis date of the relevant disease is subscribed to and the insured was unaware of the fact that the disease occurred at the time of subscription,” the term “first diagnosis date” in this context refers to the starting date of direct treatment for a direct disease that caused physical or mental disability, and it is reasonable to interpret that the term “first diagnosis date” in this context refers to the starting date of medical treatment for a direct disease that caused the above disability or the starting date of medical treatment for a disease that caused the disability or for a normal life after receiving appropriate treatment for the disease and resulting in a recurrence of the subsequent physical disability, it does not mean the starting date of medical treatment.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2011Du31178 Decided April 13, 2012). B.

Facts of recognition

1...